The fallacious move from different perspectives to relativism about truth

This is a short lecture video about a common argument that one often hears for the claim the truth of some claims are relative. The argument stems from the fact that different people have different perspectives and that those different perspectives are, in some sense, equal. All that is true, but it does not show the matters about which people have different perspectives are not factual matters regarding which some beliefs are simply truth and others simply false.

[Petticca]

Two concepts are muddied together here.

One is the use of the label of truth, or what does it mean to say somethings is true, from a definitional standpoint.

The other is what can the label of "being true" be applied to, so that it fits with the defined, accepted usage of the term.

True is to comport to reality - to be a factually accurate _statement_ about something within reality.

You can label something as "objectively" true if what is claimed as being "objectively" true can be independently verified; if ithe statement can be demonstrated to comport to reality. Something is "objectively true" If it is _not_ subject to an _individual's_ preference, ignorance, knowledge, opinion, feelings, belief or personal experience.

And the problem is, there are people who wish to apply the label to something that can in no way be demonstrated to comport to reality, objectively.

In the case of "morals" some like to claim that there is an "objective standard". That it is "true" that there is an "objective moral standard", however such can not be defined in a consistent manner that corresponds to what either of those words mean, and there is, ironically, frequent disagreement about what it is, and what is encompassed within the concept of this "objective moral standard".

I find it interesting that the 'challenges' from religious people who hold to the idea of an "objective moral standard", are not centered around the demonstrable "standard" that is being claimed to exist and be "true" of reality.

It is because "morality" is a concept that we have conceived to define, and categorize, a particular aspect of behavior, reason, and opinions that pertain to our intention for an action, particularly those actions that affect others.

Morality is a value system of intentions, actions, and consequences of such. How we determine something as being a "moral" act is entirely dependent upon numerous subjective variables of our own- Knowledge, understanding, ignorance, emotional regulation, mental capacity, empathetic capacity, personal and shared ideals, societal norms, opinions and beliefs, desires, intention, and motivation, as well as our perceptions, assumptions or knowledge of those variables in someone else.

It is as impossible to demonstrate an "objective moral standard", as it is to demonstrate an "objective humor standard", or an "objective emotional standard" - Because these concepts rely upon a plethora of, subjective of an individual variables, and for social context we factor in those variables that others have (or what we perceive them to have), to derive a value judgement, or determine how we feel about anything that falls under the scope of those concepts.

It is objectively true that humans individually, and collectively as societies, have moral norms or ideals. It is objectively true that humans individually, and collectively as societies, can and do experience shifts in what is considered an acceptable moral norm or ideal.

It is objectively true that most individuals and collective societies have a standard regarding actions that - cause the death of other humans, result in bodily harm of other humans, serve to take the property of other humans without their consent, or for personal gain, or cause the destruction of the property of another.

It is also objectively true that what exactly is or is not deemed morally permissable and to what degree, within those categories, and what is or is not deemed an appropriate reactionary consequence of actions that fall within those categories, can differ wildly between individuals and societies.

It is objectively true that there is no demonstrable "standard" of what is considered moral, and how what is considered immoral should be responded to.

If there is an "objectively true standard" it is an empirically verifiable standard, independent of circumstance, justification or consequence. Otherwise it is a "standard" that is _subject_ to specific justifications, a reasoned to subjective standard. It is definitionally, and actually, _not_ an objectively true standard.

Invoking perspective, or opinion, for concepts that rely upon personal experience, ideals and beliefs, such as when discussing morality is not an example of fallaciously reasoning about something empirically verifiable, such as a goat.

If it was possible to demonstrate the fallacious reasoning as stated, you could have actually used something from the list of things within philosophy that are very rigorously argued to not be something that can be claimed to be "objectively true", such as, I don't know, say, an objective moral standard- instead of using an example of two visual vantage points, temporarily limiting the fully encompassing visual evaluation of an objectively quantifiable, accessible, examinable, verifiable, extant object, that has empirically measurable standards that can be independently corroborated to be true, as stated.

As it is, if it's a "debate" within philosophy, that is to say, if it is a claim that gets to hang out, asserting it is, yet not being demonstrated to be "true" of reality, it doesn't get to defeat the view held that - you're going to have to offer up something better than an assertion of divine mandate- by claiming that by relying on, or invoking perspective one is caused not recognize it, as a whole, for what it is in reality.

The goat can be demonstrated to match, in reality, the statements made about what is true of goats, in reality. Regardless of someone having limited data, the limited data points will still comport to correct parts of the stated larger data set. Objectively.

It is true that an "objective moral standard" exists in reality assertion, not so much.

[djinn]

This is one hell of a hard to swallow pill. And it has been so enlightening

[avstern]

Architects use drawings as analytic tools to understand the space, composition, structure of buildings and built human environments. No one drawing by itself can show the whole "truth" of a building. In fact architects purposefully choose certain drawings to limit certain information and prioritize and clarify other information - these are analytical drawings. The word analysis includes the root "lysis" which means (if i'm not mistaken) to cut. A plan drawing (sometimes called a plan section) cuts the top off a building, revealing the composition of vertically oriented structures (walls, posts/columns), and revealing the spaces for human habitation that result. Plans cannot reveal the structure of a roof or floors, that information is purposely left out of a plan drawing by the choice of the view, to prioritize and clarify the vertical structure and resulting space. To show the roof and floor structures, an architect draws a vertical section drawing that "cuts" vertically through the building. The section drawing reveals the structure of the roof, floor and other other horizontal elements (beams and girders, etc) that help explain the heights of spaces, how strong the floors and roof are - how much load they can hold, where there is vertical circulation (stairwells, elevators). Vertical sections cannot fully elucidate the space available in rooms, etc. because that information is left out of a section drawing to focus on the information listed above.

No individual drawing can architecturally explain a building in its entirety. An architect develops a set of drawings to do that. No single view is sufficient to reveal the facts of how the building is to be built. It is interesting that the metaphor of "perspective" in the lecture is used to indicate that only certain objective fact are typically revealed by a person's perspective (of the goat for instance). To extend that assertion, perspectives can offer as much misinformation as information, and so even the objective facts that may be revealed in a perspective may be hard to differentiate from other objective falsities seemingly revealed in the same perspective. The signal to noise ratio is unknowable from the person holding the perspective. Perspective drawings are rarely used by architects as an analytical tool, they paint a picture but do not provide access to much in terms of objective truth.

[hakimal-hakim]

Although there is an infinity of perspectives to see the goat, but there is only one goat.

[grayaj]

I see this position on global skepticism as similar to what a lot of people believe about atheism. If "global skepticism" must necessarily be a denial of all objective truth, what words should I use to say "I have no idea if objective truths exist. I have never seen one, but can't prove a negative. As a result I am dubious of any claims that they exist."

Likewise, to me, "atheism" isn't a denial. It's not a position. It's the lack of a position. I've never encountered a god or a compelling reason to believe one exists.

The word I would naturally gravitate toward for both of these ideas is "skepticism". To me, that just means "I am as yet unconvinced."

There may yet be gods and objective truths. I have a bias, but no concrete position on either point.

[RonLWilson]

It seems the key thing here is that beliefs do not necessarily arrive from just one observation from one perspective. While this can be the case it need not be the case, and in fact probably should not be the case in that prudence might dictate that one refrains from forming a belief until one has examined a subject from observations and many different perspectives.

So yes, if one can prematurely jump to a conclusion just from one single observation, and that may be required in certain situations like someone runs out in front of ones car one needs to hit the brakes ASAP.

But even then one needs to act intelligent so as not to skid the car are do further damage. But while actions may be based on the beliefs of the moment, more permanent beliefs should it seems be based on more measured and careful observations. while momentary beliefs may arise form looking at something for just that immediate perspective, long term beliefs need not be so limited and can consider things from many perspectives.

But if one is such that once they formulate a belief they then can never change that then that immediately belif can the take root and hinder one from ever refining or revising that belief. But to allow that one may then open Pandora's box and a hole slew of beliefs may then come under question. So perhaps that is why some cling to those initial beliefs. But if one believes that it is best to go with one's first gut impression else one may end up questioning everything and thus believe nothing implies that their gut feelings are more reliably than reasoned thought. But all that does is make those who think that all the more vulnerable to con artist who know how to engineer things to bring about those gut reactions such as producing false or misleading information or playing on their emotions are taking advantage of any ignorance ore biases they might have on a subject.

So yes, thinking about things can lead to doubts. But doubts can lead to even more thinking which can perhaps eventually mitigate many if not all those doubts and lead to greater certainty, in contrast to a manufactured certainty based on arbitrary devices such as reliance on one's gut feelings.

that is not to say one should not consider those gut feelings, they being yet another perspective, rather one should not solely rely ion them and that one should strive to reconcile those guts feeling with reason so the two can work together to better understand and assess the truth of a matter. For one can err in their reason and those gut feelings (are the like such as the heart) can be a check against such errors. But likewise those gut feelings can be wrong or misleading as well. But the two are not mutually exclusive and one can consider both. And in doing so one is looking at the problem from (at least) two different perspectives from the get go.

So what makes one perspective is not so much better than another but additive in that it can show things that the other perceive cannot as readily see. But to think about things not only is more work but can create doubts, albeit those doubts can be perhaps allayed by further thought. If not, maybe one should hold off from formulating a hard core belief and stay on the fence for a while longer until those doubts can be allayed by further observations or insights. But that does not mean one should never get off that fence, for that too is a belief and as such to believe that one never can get off any fence is just getting off another fence in regard to beliefs in general.

Thus it seems beliefs are important, not so much in what one believes or not (that seems secondary) but rather is that belief true. For having a false belief can be worse than being on the fence. But having a belief that is true is better than both being ion the fence or believing something that is false. So not all beliefs are created equal or doubts as well. For It seems (as you say) some beliefs are better than others and similarly some doubts are better than others as well.

For if one doesn't know one way or the other, doubt seems to be the proper response to that condition of not knowing. But to doubt everything is it seems not only an extreme but one that seems to bretay that one does not doubt that one should at all time doubt. Plus one actions are based on beliefs even if they are monetary ones. as such one may not know if a building is on fire or not when the fire alarm goes off, but one may believe that it is better to be safe than sorry and thus exit the building based on that belief. So beliefs are not just necessary but seems to be unavoidable in that one musty choose (for even to deliberately not choose is a choice) and choices require beliefs, be they momentary beliefs or more prominent ones.

So all this is a long winded way of agreeing with what you are saying in this video, but maybe from yet a few additional perspectives.

[johnmanno]

Dr Kaplan, if one is a moral realist, and says that there is, or may be, objective truth (and there very well may be), what is the best way in order to approach it, and how do you know that you are in fact approaching it?

[chrisnevers]

I think the goat situation is not structurally equivalent across categories. In regards to morality in the analogy, you’re presupposing the existence of objective morality via the goat. You should demonstrate it with a blank space of knowledge that no human knows. This lecture reminded me of Russel’s toaster in space. The burden of proof should be on moral objectivism.

And yet, I ask myself this question :
Is "there is no objective truth" specifically an objective truth?

[WielkiKaleson]

Not my language (for different people), but a very nice video. Much needed.

People - their believes and feeling - it is an enourmously complicated subject. If you start studying this, it is hard to get even "local truths". This is what I don't like about humanities. Too difficult! Like: truth does not exist, because a group of people cannot agree on something that seems "basic". Some scholars fail repeatedly and try to draw conclusions from those failures only. Why don't they start "from 1 apple added to 1 apple in my basket means I have 2 apples" - true or false?

[APhilosopherWhoWantstobeKing]

When Mr. Kaplan says that there are no perspectives that are better than another, I immediately consider the philosophical norm, that arguments cannot be circular. But life is circular! All the perspectives that lead to a meaningful and good life are circular arguments. And I judge that some perspectives for living are better than others. I equate perspective more with stance than view of the world. I believe that I am a creative being living in a quantum universe.

[PersianQuant]

You really gotta educate yourself on what goats look like!

[MichaelShaw-hygj]

I agree with you. He repeats over and over that all perspectives are equal but they clearly aren’t. If you go far enough back you can’t see that there is anything there at all. If you look from one angle there might be a truck obscuring your view completely. Thankfully all perspectives are equal doesn’t normally wash in court.

[iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:

00:00 🤔 The idea of there being no objective truths is attractive, as it appears egalitarian and denies anyone a monopoly on truth.
01:52 🧐 An argument for global skepticism about truth relies on the notion that different perspectives lead to different beliefs, which then suggests there are no objective truths.
03:00 🔍 Perspectives can be visual (angles from which we see something) or metaphorical (influenced by experiences, beliefs, etc.).
06:37 🚫 The fact that perspectives differ does not imply that no beliefs are objectively true or false.
10:28 🔄 Global skepticism is self-refuting and presents logical problems.

Made with HARPA AI

[Yo_mamma_fight]

😂Was there an argument made I missed, all I heard was a bunch of statement😂 So now I really don’t believes in objectives truth😂

[a.d]

The truth is objective. Anyone who says otherwise is coping and likely dishonest. Many people dont want truths to objective because its convenient for them (though they often pretenciously try and hide it under some other more "noble" motive)

[fanuluiciorannrxd]

The only true perspective is the immortal science of marxist-leninism!!!

*Loud USSR anthem starts playing.*

[Bronco]

I disagree with the first statement. I think the idea "there are no objective truths" is neither attractive or not attractive, it simply is the way it is. It is the most logical way of looking at it to me

[i.q]

The statement "There is no objective truth" is a self defeating statement. Since if nothing is objectively true, that would include the statement in question, making it also not true.

[kredit]

Confusing, no perspective better than another perspective, but goat front face perspective is better to see quantity of horns.